5 ms·

I posted about social justice purely because the flagged comment did. Two posts later you claimed there was ill-informed outrage surrounding SJW labelling - so

by tomlock 10y ago

I posted about social justice purely because the flagged comment did. Two posts later you claimed there was ill-informed outrage surrounding SJW labelling - so it didn't take much for you to take up the topic. What do you feel I should offer that I'm not offering which is relevant to the topic you're engaging me on? You've previously said you'd like my observations of outrage online. Why? If you feel the need to say "ill-informed outrage" clearly you feel some outrage is not "ill-informed". Drawing the conclusion that you feel there are different types of outrage is logical.

white-flame 10y ago
"Two posts later you claimed there was ill-informed outrage surrounding SJW labelling - so it didn't take much for you to take up the topic." Again, I brought a simple postulated example about one blanket negativity applied to the SJW label wars. This is painfully obvious in everything I've said, linking the two concepts (outrage politics and the pro-/anti-SJW flamewars, as well as the myriad other negative outrage examples). If you see the SJW label wars as completely separated from outrage manipulation accusations on both sides, then I'd like to see your view on that. (or heck, any view since you've offered none, yet pry for something) Something in there put a bug up your nose, and I've been constantly asking what that is. I said a number of things, many people said a number of things, yet you decided to pry with all your might into what I said specifically in some particular phrase there, unsatisfied with any angle of explanation I could muster. You're looking for something. "What do you feel I should offer that I'm not offering which is relevant to the topic you're engaging me on?" I would say I offered a simple statement, and you started grilling me on it. I want to know what is so critical to you that you are spending so much time on trying to extract some form of explanation from me. I'm literally just continuing on this for curiosity and entertainment purposes, but my statements are earnest. " You've previously only said you'd like my observations of outrage online. Why?" I already, multiple times, and very explicitly said because I can't believe that you have observations that don't include the ones I've had. I would like to hear yours for contrast of such a dramatically different experience than is common on the internet, and its propensity to spread and argue over hot topic discussion issues, of which outrage is so common, as is also offline with media. Edit: "If you feel the need to say "ill-informed outrage" clearly you feel some outrage is not "ill-informed". Drawing the conclusion that you feel there are different types of outrage is logical." It's simply an emphatic (along with "bandwagon"), as used in an obvious example to make it more forceful, and drawing negative stereotypes into the negation I was making. Informedness tends to bring level-headedness, so the opposite drives the analogy.
- tomlock 10y ago
  I'm sorry you feel "grilled", but I'm just trying to understand your position. You've made some big claims about society. Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation. How? By who?
  - white-flame 10y ago
    Why is this so important to you that you keep on? I don't care about the "grilling" in any negative sense, I'm just curious where you're driving this. I'm responding as a passenger in your mysterious investigation. Given all the many hot-topic major media issues I've listed, which saturate the airwaves, watercooler discussions, and online arguments, how do you dismiss them as just some "big claims" about the current social climate that need further evidence? "Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation." Clearly, you're impervious to my stating that specificity to uber is not my point at all. But yeah, I've seen and heard my share of railing on this topic with the usual outrage claims & counter-claims, which isn't just some nebulous "reflection" of the overall "situation" I'm positing, but tired content I've seen. Get to the meat of what you're looking for, already, and stop reiterating non-claims.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      People still believe vitamin C prevents the common cold. > what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile. So you're saying you don't see outrage reflected in the Uber situation?
      - white-flame 10y ago
        "People still believe vitamin C prevents the common cold." Non-sequitur. Please answer my query about your view on the massive global social discussion on outrage being an unfounded claim. "So you're saying you don't see outrage reflected in the Uber situation?" That was a general statement about outrage, as I've said over and over. Also, why did it take you that long to ask that question, if it's what you were trying to pry out from way back when that statement was made? If you'd simply make your partial understanding known, then we'd have a nice human conversation with mutual understanding.

by tomlock 10y ago

white-flame 10y ago

"Two posts later you claimed there was ill-informed outrage surrounding SJW labelling - so it didn't take much for you to take up the topic." Again, I brought a simple postulated example about one blanket negativity applied to the SJW label wars. This is painfully obvious in everything I've said, linking the two concepts (outrage politics and the pro-/anti-SJW flamewars, as well as the myriad other negative outrage examples). If you see the SJW label wars as completely separated from outrage manipulation accusations on both sides, then I'd like to see your view on that. (or heck, any view since you've offered none, yet pry for something) Something in there put a bug up your nose, and I've been constantly asking what that is. I said a number of things, many people said a number of things, yet you decided to pry with all your might into what I said specifically in some particular phrase there, unsatisfied with any angle of explanation I could muster. You're looking for something. "What do you feel I should offer that I'm not offering which is relevant to the topic you're engaging me on?" I would say I offered a simple statement, and you started grilling me on it. I want to know what is so critical to you that you are spending so much time on trying to extract some form of explanation from me. I'm literally just continuing on this for curiosity and entertainment purposes, but my statements are earnest. " You've previously only said you'd like my observations of outrage online. Why?" I already, multiple times, and very explicitly said because I can't believe that you have observations that don't include the ones I've had. I would like to hear yours for contrast of such a dramatically different experience than is common on the internet, and its propensity to spread and argue over hot topic discussion issues, of which outrage is so common, as is also offline with media. Edit: "If you feel the need to say "ill-informed outrage" clearly you feel some outrage is not "ill-informed". Drawing the conclusion that you feel there are different types of outrage is logical." It's simply an emphatic (along with "bandwagon"), as used in an obvious example to make it more forceful, and drawing negative stereotypes into the negation I was making. Informedness tends to bring level-headedness, so the opposite drives the analogy.

tomlock 10y ago
I'm sorry you feel "grilled", but I'm just trying to understand your position. You've made some big claims about society. Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation. How? By who?
- white-flame 10y ago
  Why is this so important to you that you keep on? I don't care about the "grilling" in any negative sense, I'm just curious where you're driving this. I'm responding as a passenger in your mysterious investigation. Given all the many hot-topic major media issues I've listed, which saturate the airwaves, watercooler discussions, and online arguments, how do you dismiss them as just some "big claims" about the current social climate that need further evidence? "Clearly, you see some of these reflected in the Uber situation." Clearly, you're impervious to my stating that specificity to uber is not my point at all. But yeah, I've seen and heard my share of railing on this topic with the usual outrage claims & counter-claims, which isn't just some nebulous "reflection" of the overall "situation" I'm positing, but tired content I've seen. Get to the meat of what you're looking for, already, and stop reiterating non-claims.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    People still believe vitamin C prevents the common cold. > what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile. So you're saying you don't see outrage reflected in the Uber situation?
    - white-flame 10y ago
      "People still believe vitamin C prevents the common cold." Non-sequitur. Please answer my query about your view on the massive global social discussion on outrage being an unfounded claim. "So you're saying you don't see outrage reflected in the Uber situation?" That was a general statement about outrage, as I've said over and over. Also, why did it take you that long to ask that question, if it's what you were trying to pry out from way back when that statement was made? If you'd simply make your partial understanding known, then we'd have a nice human conversation with mutual understanding.